Update solution article

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether this is a partial update (only article_id is required, so unspecified fields are presumably preserved), whether publishing requires a separate call, or what permission level is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so structurally fine. But its brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the one sentence carries almost no actionable information for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, one required ID, and an output schema present (so return values needn't be explained), the description still omits critical context: partial vs. full update semantics, interaction with publish_solution_article, and the meaning of a folder move. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is a moderate 67%, with inline descriptions for status, folder_id, article_id, description, review_date, and article_type. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving tags, title, and keywords undocumented and not clarifying the partial-update semantics implied by the all-optional schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb (Update) and a resource (knowledge-base article), but uses terminology that doesn't match the tool name or sibling family ('solution article'). It also does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like publish_solution_article, update_solution_folder, or create_solution_article, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus publish_solution_article (which also changes status) or update_solution_folder (which also handles moves, a capability hinted at by folder_id). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.